Tag Archives: culture

Negative Inference

Posted on by
Reply

Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg likes to jet around the country and to overseas locations. He claims to do this while flying coach on commercial airlines, but he’s also taken 23 jet rides at taxpayer expense on private Government-owned jets. Now he’s refusing to supply relevant oversight data for these rides.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has turned down repeated requests for information related to the taxpayer costs of 23 flights Secretary Pete Buttigieg and his advisers took on government private jets since taking office.
The DOT and the agency’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office both declined to detail how much each flight cost taxpayers over the course of multiple months and in recent weeks.

It’s illegal for Government agencies to refuse to respond substantively to FOIA requests (clearly saying “No” with a clear explanation of the legality for that “No” would constitute such a substantive response).

It’s a common practice in cases before a court for a judge to advise a jury that when a prosecutor’s witness obfuscates during his testimony, or refuses to answer clearly or at all, the jury is free to attach the most negative interpretation to those witness failures during the jury’s subsequent deliberations.

So it is with the man who sits in the Transportation Secretary’s chair. Pete Buttigieg cannot be taken as anything other than both in over his head and dishonest. His words are useless, and the only conclusion possible concerning those flights is that they were done illegally, and that illegality—repeated 23 times—should be a fireable offense.

Perhaps it’s time for Government officials who stonewall to lose access to their office facilities through those facilities’ loss of funding. And this step, also, although it won’t have immediate effect, even were it to get through the Progressive-Democratic Party-dominated Senate and White House:

House Republicans plan to vote to defund non-complying witnesses in the government when the new fiscal budget takes effect on October 1.

In the present case, that would mean Buttigieg and the head of his FOIA Office would lose their salaries.

Illinois and the 2nd Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

In a Just the News article concerning an Illinois district judge’s impending order declaring unconstitutional that State’s Progressive-Democratic Party-run government ban on a broad range of firearms and the requirement for citizens to register with that government those firearms they already possess, there’s this closing paragraph.

In federal court, four cases consolidated in the Southern District of Illinois have a hearing set for April 12. The state filed its response to a motion for a preliminary injunction Thursday arguing the ban addresses dangerous and unusual weapons the Founders of the US Constitution couldnt imagine in the 18th Century. Plaintiffs argue the law violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Which leads me to ask: what would be more dangerous than privately owned artillery and sea-going combat ships? Yet those weapons were privately owned and contributed heavily to the war effort in our Revolution against another government that was, among other things, seeking to disarm us.

For the benefit of those Illinois Progressive-Democrats, here is the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those personages should note carefully that there are no caveats in that short sentence. In particular, there is no caveat for “Arms of which Government disapproves from time to time.”

Our Woke DoD Managers

Posted on by
1

Here’s Lloyd Austin’s Pentagon in action, via a memo he had sent to the public affairs offices of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard on Feb. 10:

In recent years, many sponsors of sporting events have instituted a tradition of requesting uniformed military members to unfurl and hold giant, horizontal US flags during events as an expression of patriotism and love of the country[.]
While many, including military members, view these displays as inspiring and patriotic…uniformed service members may not participate directly in the unfurling, holding, and/or carrying of giant, horizontal US flags that are not displayed during community outreach events.

View these flag displays as patriotic. Not just view them as patriotic, these flag displays are patriotic. Austin’s memo is disgusting. Barring our military personnel from participating in these flag displays—displays of the flag which symbolizes the nation for which these men and women are sworn to defend, even to die in the defense—is too woke by half. Austin needs to be dismissed. Not allowed to resign, dismissed.

Full stop.

In Which I disagree with DeSantis

Posted on by
Reply

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has written in his new book, The Courage to be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for American Revival, that (Fox News‘ paraphrasing)

…left-wing company employees pressuring their executives to reflect their political values and “woke” CEOs using their corporate bully pulpit to exert their influence.
“This is especially true as the movement for [ESG] responsibility within corporate America has gained traction[.]”

I disagree, and this is a much broader problem than the ESG movement. Company executives who understand who is in charge of the companies they run only feel the political or “social justice” pressure of their employees that they choose to feel. The employees work for them, and they work for the companies’ shareholders. There is no bidirectionality to the governing hierarchy.

Company executives who surrender to their employees’ political/social justice demands are unfit for their roles in company governance: they’re abject cowards.

“Ran out of Time”

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington, DC, City Council, dominated by the Progressive-Democratic Party as it is, voted a month ago to allow non-citizens, including illegal aliens, to vote in city elections, so long as they have been “resident” in the city for at least 30 days.

Congress has a 30-day review window during which it can override DC Council-passed laws and remove them.  The Republican-led House did so, but the Progressive-Democrat-led Senate…did not. As Fox News meekly put it, the Senate ran out of time before the review period ended.

No, the Senate didn’t run out of time. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) wouldn’t even let the matter come to the floor for a vote. Apparently, he didn’t want his majority caucus to have to be on the record as favoring non-citizens voting in American elections.

This needn’t be the end of the matter, though, the 30-day window is a statute, not a constitutionally set limit. Here’s what Art I, Sect 8, of our Constitution has to say on the governance of the District of Columbia:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States….

That exclusive legislation over the District means that a later Congress can withdraw DC laws allowed under prior Congresses. This business of allowing non-citizens—including those illegal aliens—to vote in American elections, a quintessential factor in being an American citizen, needs to be rescinded. Elections have consequences, and we have another one coming in a year-and-a-half.

I have a caveat to this, though. Some might suggest that DC’s voter rolls might be useful things to search for illegal aliens in the District, round them up, and deport them. That must not happen. Government must not run around searching jurisdictions’ voter rolls to find illegal aliens, no matter how convenient such a search might seem.

Government must never be allowed to any search voter roll for groups of folks of whom Government, from administration to administration, disapproves and…silencing…them. The only purpose for a voter roll, the only legitimate purpose for local government searches of them, is to establish eligibility to vote in a jurisdiction and to remove individuals who are not eligible from those rolls. The Federal government must not be involved in such searches.